6 comments on " The Disparity In Online Spending Is A Good Thing"

1. Roderick White from World Advertising Research Center
   

   commented on: August 28, 2007 at 7:51 AM
   Max, I got into this one late, as we've had a public holiday here in the UK. I have spent a lot of the last few years, almost ever since the online world started complaining that the share of spend taken by the internet didn't match its share of media time spent, trying to point out that time spent on a medium does not necessarily equate to attention available for advertising (if that's the right metric - and I think it's in the right ballpark). And I'm writing this just after reading a piece - which I've erased, so I can't easily reference it - in one of MediaPost's newsletters saying that eyetracking research shows that surfers don't actually even look at banner ads. That's why, as your other respondents point out, people with real money to spend have been looking for proof of performance before going mad with their potential online budgets. There is, too, a further point which I don't have a real handle on, but which must be part of the equation. There is a genuine qualitative difference between say TV and online advertisng: TV ads are 'fishing', in a very large pool. Online ads are - or should be - 'rifle shooting': it should require less effort, and therefore less money, to get a particular result.

2. Max Kalehoff from Nielsen BuzzMetrics
   

   commented on: August 27, 2007 at 11:20 AM
   Gian, I think you bring up a great point with respect to the creatives. The historical canvas of media has been more of a blank and controlled one -- whereby the artistry goes one way with full reign, from the "paid" media to the prospect. There's an assumption that the consumer is simply sitting there in a chair with full attention, ready to soak in the creation as the creative executed it -- whether it be a 30-second tv or radio spot, a full-page ad in a newspaper, or a billboard. Conversely, creative in Interactive is far more dynamic, where attention is less guarenteed versus earned, and whereby the artist must be far more adaptive to the shifting and somewhat complex, sometimes ephemeral canvas of an interactive environment. It requires expertise in interactive experience, design, the written word, multimedia production, search and algorithms, bandwidth and device variance, social connections among numerous other areas. You bet, this is scary for a traditional advertising creatives! Max

3. Billy Jones from BloggingPoet.com
   

   commented on: August 24, 2007 at 6:50 PM
   Craig Whetstine from Soho Radio Networks is looking in the right direction except that it's not about the big players.

   Big name media players control traditional media but that isn't the case online. While big name media players have huge online audiences their market share is a drop in the online bucket. Take the local newspaper here in Blogsboro, North Carolina: 90,000 circulation daily, not bad for a medium sized city. And their website probably sees 20,000 daily but collectively the 300 plus local blogs see 4-5 times the traffic of our local newspaper websites. Several local bloggers are each seeing 3-5 thousand readers daily.

   When online marketers learn the real numbers are to be found in The Long Tail they will start putting their money where it will do them the most good. And affiliate marketing and PPC will not be the way of the future. Only then will online advertising get its fair share.

4. Lori Levesque from InfoMine Inc.
   

   commented on: August 24, 2007 at 4:41 PM
   Hello, Prior to working for my current employer, I was a Media Supervisor for an advertising agency in Montreal, servicing international accounts. I am currently selling and consulting for the world's largest website in global mining. Yes, the converts to online advertising need a lot of reassurance that the "stuff really works". I find a lot of my time is spent re-selling ideas and teaching users how their advertising works to generate interest and build business. Effectively, the cost to maintain clients in year one or two is relatively high in that they need ongoing attention - contrary to traditional media where occasional visits suffice. I do believe a lot of this necessary input has a lot to do with the transition of younger people into management. I have a lot of faith in the future of online advertising and encourage professional to "stick with it". Best regards, Lori Levesque Lori Levesque Account Executive & Media Marketing Specialist InfoMine Incorporated

5. gian fulgoni from comScore
   

   commented on: August 24, 2007 at 3:46 PM
   Interesting post, Max. I think there are several reasons for the lag. To begin, new and emerging media have always been held to a higher standard of proof of effectiveness. The proof is building but it takes time. Other reasons relate, I believe, to human nature. Change is always threatening. It's easier for an agency to use the media with which theyve had the most experience. And, most creatives would prefer to have an expensive TV ad on their reel. Perhaps most influential, imagine the slowdown when the CEO's wife indicates she prefers to see the company's brands advertised on television!

6. Craig Whetstine from Soho Radio Networks
   

   commented on: August 24, 2007 at 2:53 PM
   Right now this all about broadcasting v. narrowcasting (maybe nichecasting?). The television universe still hits large numbers of people, generally all at once. Yes, television is now also a narrowcaster as a result of cable and satellite station. The Internet has a nearly infinite number of options for users/surfers and, if we believe Jakob Nielsen, web users ignore Internet advertising, anyway. Web users ARE more engaged, I'm certain, than PUTs. Once the big players on the Internet figure a way to make buyers comfortable with Internet "numbers," we'll see that disparity go away in a...click?

Leave a Comment